We observe that the condition of chanctx could not be back to
IEEE80211_CHANCTX_REPLACE_NONE occasionally while STA connection.
In this case the state could be IEEE80211_CHANCTX_REPLACE_OTHER, which
fails the check and then creates another chanctx that leads to the next
round of chan_switch failure in cfg80211_check_combinations().
So, modify state to just rule out IEEE80211_CHANCTX_WILL_BE_REPLACED.
Signed-off-by: Ryder Lee <[email protected]>
---
net/mac80211/chan.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/mac80211/chan.c b/net/mac80211/chan.c
index e26d42de14ec..604095ff7a5b 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/chan.c
+++ b/net/mac80211/chan.c
@@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ ieee80211_find_chanctx(struct ieee80211_local *local,
list_for_each_entry(ctx, &local->chanctx_list, list) {
const struct cfg80211_chan_def *compat;
- if (ctx->replace_state != IEEE80211_CHANCTX_REPLACE_NONE)
+ if (ctx->replace_state == IEEE80211_CHANCTX_WILL_BE_REPLACED)
continue;
if (ctx->mode == IEEE80211_CHANCTX_EXCLUSIVE)
--
2.29.2
On Sat, 2022-03-19 at 06:18 +0800, Ryder Lee wrote:
> We observe that the condition of chanctx could not be back to
> IEEE80211_CHANCTX_REPLACE_NONE occasionally while STA connection.
Not sure I parse this correctly, can you elaborate?
> In this case the state could be IEEE80211_CHANCTX_REPLACE_OTHER, which
> fails the check and then creates another chanctx that leads to the next
> round of chan_switch failure in cfg80211_check_combinations().
But if it's REPLACES_OTHER (note your typo), then it's not yet
registered properly or anything.
> So, modify state to just rule out IEEE80211_CHANCTX_WILL_BE_REPLACED.
Therefore, that really doesn't seem right.
A chanctx with IEEE80211_CHANCTX_REPLACES_OTHER needs to get used via
ieee80211_vif_use_reserved_switch().
johannes